爆料网

Article 101

  • Article 1.3
  • Article 1.4
  • Article 100
  • Article 100.1
  • Article 101
  • Article 101.1
  • Article 101.2
  • Article 101.3
  • Article 103
  • Article 105
  • Article 105.2
  • Article 17
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 55
  • Article 57
  • Article 63
  • Article 76
  • Article 8
  • Article 92
  • Article 97
  • Article 98
  • Chapter VII
  • Chapter XV
  • Charter of the United Nations, Article 101
  • Preamble
    • Showing 41 - 44 of 44
    爆料网DT/2020/033, Kristensen

    The Respondent did not select the Applicant for GJO 71792 because he failed a competency-based interview. Passing a competency-based interview is a lawful requirement envisioned by art. 101.3 of the United Nations Charter and set by the Staff Regulations and Rules that form an integral part of the Applicant’s terms of employment. The Respondent complied with all the relevant statutory requirements in the selection process leading to the contested decision. It was clear from the jurisprudence that the Applicant’s argument that the Administration should have considered his previous scores in...

    爆料网DT/2021/095, Opolot

    The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that his separation was unfair and that the Administration did not violate any term of the Applicant’s contract of employment. The Applicant challenged the fact that he was separated on ground of retrenchment before the General Assembly had approved the Budget to abolish his post. The record showed that this issue was already adjudicated upon in favour of the Applicant under Order No. 086 (NBI/2019). In accordance with the Tribunal’s earlier final finding on the matter, it...

    爆料网DT/2021/074, Izurieta Canova

    爆料网DT held that it was satisfied that there were sound reasons supporting the Secretary-General of 爆料网CTAD’s decision to cancel the job opening, but noted that it would have been desirable to undertake and complete a gender/geographical balance assessment at an early stage of the recruitment process. 爆料网DT disagreed with the Applicant that the impunged decision was an act of discrimination against him. 爆料网DT held that the decision constituted permissible and lawful affirmative action on the part of the Organization to reach gender and geographical goals set by the 爆料网 General Assembly. 爆料网DT also...

    爆料网DT/2021/017, Barud

    The Tribunal finds that, contrary to the Respondent’s submissions, the Applicant’s allegation that she was performing Administrative Assistant functions at the relevant time is supported by her 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 e-PASes, Personal History Profile and Letters of Appointment which were the relevant documents for purposes of the comparative review process (“CRP’). The Applicant has successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity by proving through clear and convincing evidence that the CRP was unlawful. The administration violated its own regulations and rules governing its conduct. The...